Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-23-2014, 09:21 PM   #15
4 Rivet Member
 
2007 23' Safari SE
2016 23' International
Fernandina Beach , Florida
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by gypsydad View Post
Guess I'm missing something here....are you guys nuts? That's a Volvo wagon, right?? Your thinking of buying a $$$ pricy Volvo wagon with a small turbo charged engine to pull a 5K+ pound AS?? May I ask what your smoking?
Yea, that wimpy little wagon with 400 HP and 472 pounds-feet torque...

See it here: 2016 Volvo XC90 Plug-In Hybrid Revealed In LA - Video - HybridCars.com
__________________

__________________
Tomzstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2014, 11:38 PM   #16
Rivet Master
 
gypsydad's Avatar

 
2017 28' Flying Cloud
2014 25' FB Flying Cloud
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Austin (winter) Lincoln MT (summer) , Texas & Montana
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomzstream View Post
Yea, that wimpy little wagon with 400 HP and 472 pounds-feet torque...

See it here: 2016 Volvo XC90 Plug-In Hybrid Revealed In LA - Video - HybridCars.com
Forgive me for insulting....just don't think of a Volvo as a TV...it's a family wagon in my eyes...and I have owned a few Volvos, MBZ's also, including the ML350 pulling a 5K lb trailer; to me, the 1/2 ton PU's make the most sense...but, pull on with your Volvo...be safe!
__________________

__________________
gypsydad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 12:59 AM   #17
4 Rivet Member
 
1975 27' Overlander
High River , Alberta
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by rostam View Post
Volvo that designed/manufactured/tested the vehicle says it can tow 5300#. What makes you think it can tow any Airstream? Are you a former design engineer in Volvo, and have some inside information we do not have? Until you run J2807 towing tests on an XC90 with a trailer weighing more than 5300#, it can only tow 5300#.

No, I'm not an engineer, just someone with mechanical aptitude who thinks for himself and regards marketing claims with a measure of skepticism.

First, I doubt if Volvo applied J2807 in establishing the 2400 kg weight number. The old XC90 was always rated for 2250 kg, despite having considerably less power with the 2.5 light-pressure turbo 5 cylinder or the 3.2 inline 6. These numbers are based on European standards, and assume the absence of any weight-distributing hitch system.

Second, J2807 is primarily performance based, with the most significant value a 0-60 mph acceleration time of less than 30 seconds - a modest standard by any measure. Cooling system performance on a long grade in 100 degree weather is also simulated. There are a couple of other grade-based requirements, but based on personal experience with my Volvos, and a close examination of the torque output and gear ratio specs, I am confident that the XC90 would do just fine, even with a loaded 34' Airstream and a GCW of 15000 lbs. There are also braking and handling tests, but I doubt that these are difficult to achieve with a vehicle designed for performance.

Third, weight is only relevant when accelerating or climbing a hill. At speed on a level highway, aerodynamic drag is all-important and your TV doesn't "know" whether your trailer is 1000 lbs or 10000 lbs, aside from a relatively inconsequential increase in friction from tires and bearings. Practical experience has conclusively demonstrated that weight-based tow ratings are essentially meaningless, particularly when we are dealing with trailers with superior aerodynamics, a low centre of gravity, independent suspension and big brakes like our Airstreams.

Safe towing depends on a good-handling tow vehicle, a trailer that is designed to handle well, good equipment, the right tires, and a precise weight distributing hitch setup. Of course, "safe" is hard to measure, except in terms of what most people are comfortable with, and in comparison to other combinations. I expect that's why SAE J2807 does not really address safety, but mainly defines a limited number of acceptable performance standards.

FWIW, while I have owned a number of Volvos, I don't know if I will end up buying an XC90 in the future. I prefer sedans because they are always going to handle better and be more fuel-efficient. I like the Audi A7, but 5-series BMWs and the Mercedes-Benz E-Class have always been appealing. In particular, I prefer manual transmissions and I believe that rear-drive is superior, especially going sideways on snow, but that's a Canadian boy for you.
__________________
AlbertF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 07:35 AM   #18
Prairie Schooner II
 
Jim Flower's Avatar

 
2012 30' International
1997 25' Safari
1967 20' Globetrotter
Burlington , Ontario
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,182
Click image for larger version

Name:	ImageUploadedByAirstream Forums1416835903.368061.jpg
Views:	129
Size:	680.9 KB
ID:	227285

Volvo towing what appears to be a 30 footer on the 401 having no trouble whatsoever keeping up with the traffic at any time. Jim


Sent from my iPhone using Airstream Forums
__________________
Jim
Jim Flower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 07:49 AM   #19
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,411
Images: 5
Albert, I think you're incomplete in your assessment of J2807. I would like an official copy of it, but they want $70 for one!!!! I'm just not willing to spend the cash, so I have to rely on what the mags say.

It is much more than a 0 - 60 test. It is rather comprehensive and includes a long uphill climb maintaining 60mph without overheating, a braking test, 0 - 60....among others.

You are right that it is a performance based test battery designed to compare apples to apples when a relatively uneducated buyer shops for TVs. My understanding, internally, is that we will, with some digging perhaps, still have the old GCWR, payload, GAWR, GVW, etc. numbers available for a vehicle's true CAPABILITY, if you are not interested in maintaining 60mph up that hill, but still don't want to hurt reliability and durability (break it) while towing.

IOW, the folks who believed the old specs could be exceeded (they were wrong) because it was all marketing hype, will now be somewhat correct in that the J2807 "performance" numbers will be typically lower than the GCWR (the actual engineering capability of the TV).

I asked about Volvo because their number seems like the old "capability" based number, not J2807 from my experience.
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 06:21 PM   #20
4 Rivet Member
 
1975 27' Overlander
High River , Alberta
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by dznf0g View Post
Albert, I think you're incomplete in your assessment of J2807. I would like an official copy of it, but they want $70 for one!!!! I'm just not willing to spend the cash, so I have to rely on what the mags say.

It is much more than a 0 - 60 test. It is rather comprehensive and includes a long uphill climb maintaining 60mph without overheating, a braking test, 0 - 60....among others.

You are right that it is a performance based test battery designed to compare apples to apples when a relatively uneducated buyer shops for TVs. My understanding, internally, is that we will, with some digging perhaps, still have the old GCWR, payload, GAWR, GVW, etc. numbers available for a vehicle's true CAPABILITY, if you are not interested in maintaining 60mph up that hill, but still don't want to hurt reliability and durability (break it) while towing.

IOW, the folks who believed the old specs could be exceeded (they were wrong) because it was all marketing hype, will now be somewhat correct in that the J2807 "performance" numbers will be typically lower than the GCWR (the actual engineering capability of the TV).

I asked about Volvo because their number seems like the old "capability" based number, not J2807 from my experience.
Thank you for your diplomatic reply, even though my post was probably a bit strident.

Yes, the SAE website wasn't very helpful . . . and I probably relied on the same sources you did.

It's clear that there are two approaches - by the numbers, and then personal judgement.

I do respect GAWR/GVWR (and actual payload is simply GVWR less the vehicle's empty weight). Tongue weight (properly distributed) needs to be factored in. Indeed, payload capacity can be the most significant limiting factor when assessing a car's ability to tow larger trailers. However, most station wagons (including SUVs) and minivans have rather generous payload capacities.

Sedans are more limited; I can tell you that the ride on my old Volvo S60 gets rather poor on rough roads and concrete interstates when the car is loaded close to its GVWR and I am happy to be towing with the newer V70 wagon. However, the smaller and stiffer S60 was actually more stable and handled better while towing!

GCVWR is very much performance-based, and not about safety. I am comfortable being categorical about that because a number of years ago (before any discussion about J2807) I came across an article describing how trucks were tested. I came to the conclusion that GCVWR was generally based on pulling a 20%+ grade in first gear without overheating the engine, transmission, or the differential. (As an aside, it is interesting to observe how many trucks now have finned aluminum differential covers now.)

Yes, J2807 is no doubt more demanding in that respect, with the long, hot highway speed tow. However, 30 seconds to 60 mph is not a high standard. The V70 gets the Overlander to 60 in about 22 seconds.

You questioned reliability. I've certainly had that concern, but I've concluded that if the engine can move it, the rest of the driveline should be fine if the powertrain engineers have done their jobs. To put it another way, if the transmission/driveshaft/differential/axle shafts can't handle the maximum torque output of the engine on a sustained basis, that's a design failure, pure and simple. The V70's non-turbo engine produces about 235 lbs ft, while the 6 speed Aisin transmission is rated for 325. I don't know what the new ZF 8 speed that the XC90 will use is rated for.

Please understand that I am referring to steady loads, not shock loads or abuse. I am also assuming proper cooling and avoidance of frequent shifting (for automatic transmissions).
__________________
AlbertF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 11:54 PM   #21
Rivet Master
 
gypsydad's Avatar

 
2017 28' Flying Cloud
2014 25' FB Flying Cloud
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Austin (winter) Lincoln MT (summer) , Texas & Montana
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertF View Post
Thank you for your diplomatic reply, even though my post was probably a bit strident.

Yes, the SAE website wasn't very helpful . . . and I probably relied on the same sources you did.

It's clear that there are two approaches - by the numbers, and then personal judgement.

I do respect GAWR/GVWR (and actual payload is simply GVWR less the vehicle's empty weight). Tongue weight (properly distributed) needs to be factored in. Indeed, payload capacity can be the most significant limiting factor when assessing a car's ability to tow larger trailers. However, most station wagons (including SUVs) and minivans have rather generous payload capacities.

Sedans are more limited; I can tell you that the ride on my old Volvo S60 gets rather poor on rough roads and concrete interstates when the car is loaded close to its GVWR and I am happy to be towing with the newer V70 wagon. However, the smaller and stiffer S60 was actually more stable and handled better while towing!

GCVWR is very much performance-based, and not about safety. I am comfortable being categorical about that because a number of years ago (before any discussion about J2807) I came across an article describing how trucks were tested. I came to the conclusion that GCVWR was generally based on pulling a 20%+ grade in first gear without overheating the engine, transmission, or the differential. (As an aside, it is interesting to observe how many trucks now have finned aluminum differential covers now.)

Yes, J2807 is no doubt more demanding in that respect, with the long, hot highway speed tow. However, 30 seconds to 60 mph is not a high standard. The V70 gets the Overlander to 60 in about 22 seconds.

You questioned reliability. I've certainly had that concern, but I've concluded that if the engine can move it, the rest of the driveline should be fine if the powertrain engineers have done their jobs. To put it another way, if the transmission/driveshaft/differential/axle shafts can't handle the maximum torque output of the engine on a sustained basis, that's a design failure, pure and simple. The V70's non-turbo engine produces about 235 lbs ft, while the 6 speed Aisin transmission is rated for 325. I don't know what the new ZF 8 speed that the XC90 will use is rated for.

Please understand that I am referring to steady loads, not shock loads or abuse. I am also assuming proper cooling and avoidance of frequent shifting (for automatic transmissions).
Your certainly entitled to your own "opinion", but please, "don't", by any stretch of the imagination, consider yourself as giving "safe advise" by "assuming" anything when it comes to safety! Just because you can "move" a trailer under certain conditions, does not imply that it's safe to tow...several "experts" on this site have done the math more than a few times for proper weight/balance/TV/hitch, etc...again, be safe; not stupid!
__________________
gypsydad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2014, 07:01 AM   #22
4 Rivet Member
 
2007 23' Safari SE
2016 23' International
Fernandina Beach , Florida
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 280
Gypsy,

Please educate yourself before contributing to this thread. Your opinions are valid in your own household (Every man is an expert in his own home), but to come on this thread making generalization about Volvo's is silly given this thread is dedicated to discussing an all new state of the art platform and an all new state of the art drivetrain.

I actually find the analysis done to date to be very informative and useful.

Suggest you check out the following resources:

https://www.media.volvocars.com/glob...t-architecture

2015 Volvo XC90 Teased Again and SPA Chassis Detailed (The Torque Report)

And lastly, a primer on the new Boron Steel Safety cage... I can't imagine a safer capsule to be riding in while towing 2-3 tons behind you.
New XC90 burnishes Volvo's safety credentials - SAE International


Picture
__________________
Tomzstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2014, 10:00 AM   #23
4 Rivet Member
 
2007 23' Safari SE
2016 23' International
Fernandina Beach , Florida
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 280
Been reading up on the new rear suspension, and the transverse leaf spring independent suspension has lots of advantages. It has significantly less weight than a similarly equipped coil spring suspension. Less sprung weight means less load on the wheels themselves and probably contributes to the excellent load capacity (which I would think would also accommodate reasonable tongue weights as well.)

Additionally it lowers the center of gravity as it is positioned lower. It also acts as an anti roll bar which also reduces rollover risk. It is also what allows space for the electric motor. Looks like a winner to me.
__________________
Tomzstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2014, 08:15 PM   #24
Rivet Master
 
andreasduess's Avatar
 
1984 34' International
Toronto , Ontario
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,496
Images: 5
Blog Entries: 1
The Volvo looks like a fantastic vehicle. I am especially impressed by the high payload and the diesel model. It would be great if they'd make that available in North America.
__________________
andreasduess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2014, 10:55 AM   #25
4 Rivet Member
 
2007 23' Safari SE
2016 23' International
Fernandina Beach , Florida
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 280
More details on the T8 drive configuration...

It utilizes an Integrated starter/generator between the front wheel drive motor and transmission, that enables some boost in drive power as well as providing regenerative power for charging the batteries (engine braking mostly). It also derived regenerative power to the batteries from the rear drive electric motor. So while coasting downhill with your trailer, you can recoup much of the potential energy lost from driving uphill.

The ISG is 46HP itself but is not included in the combined 400HP derived from the gas engine and the rear electric motor.
__________________
Tomzstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 02:19 PM   #26
1 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Denver , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dznf0g View Post
Do not be surprised if Volvo does not allow towing with this edition. It is pretty common practice with EVs. Many of the bits and pieces may be changed from the "regular" version...to the lighter side. Add ultra low rolling resistance tires, etc. and they get knocked out of the towing game for the achievement of more range and fuel economy. That's the target market.
Usually hybrid cars can tow as much as their gas engine counterpart. Volvo has a towing pkg for this particular hybrid vehicle. the towing capacity is 5000lbs. Hybrid are actually great for towing, because of the instant on demand work they provide. An hybrid Cayenne can tow a little over 7700lbs. Usually the engine isn't the biggest factor in dictating how much you can tow, the frame, brakes, weight, etc... are all crucial factors. You don't need a big engine to tow a lot of weight.
__________________
lifeisfab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 02:40 PM   #27
1 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Denver , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by gypsydad View Post
Forgive me for insulting....just don't think of a Volvo as a TV...it's a family wagon in my eyes...and I have owned a few Volvos, MBZ's also, including the ML350 pulling a 5K lb trailer; to me, the 1/2 ton PU's make the most sense...but, pull on with your Volvo...be safe!
I think towing trailers/campers with big pick-up trucks is typically an American thing, we like big engines and big cars, but keep in mind that the rest of the world drive mostly 4 cylinders engines and their campers / trailers weight the same as ours. I think there is a tendency to think that the engine power si the primary factor in towing. It is not.
__________________
lifeisfab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 10:50 AM   #28
Rivet Master
 
gypsydad's Avatar

 
2017 28' Flying Cloud
2014 25' FB Flying Cloud
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Austin (winter) Lincoln MT (summer) , Texas & Montana
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeisfab View Post
I think towing trailers/campers with big pick-up trucks is typically an American thing, we like big engines and big cars, but keep in mind that the rest of the world drive mostly 4 cylinders engines and their campers / trailers weight the same as ours. I think there is a tendency to think that the engine power si the primary factor in towing. It is not.
Its not the engine power, nor just "towing" that is important...you need to think about safety....the shorter wheelbase SUV or cars, matched with longer, heavier, AS trailers maybe fine on level, straight roadways. It's when you start to consider control while driving in cross winds, or driving in heavy traffic with big trucks passing, or pulling your AS at highway speeds up/ down hills or mountains, quick stopping needs, and driving in inclement weather, where the safety of a heavier, longer, properly powered TV is most important. (if not for you, think about others on the road.)
A VW bug can pull an AS on straight and level...add in the other factors and really think about the job that vehicle was designed for...

I know there are all those folks who push the limit..."because they can"...their are many on this forum who also do not believe a WDH is necessary with certain trucks...for those folks, hope your luck holds out. But for many of us, its not a matter of if it can be done...its more a matter of safety. But hey, that's just my thinking...
__________________

__________________
Empty Nesters; Gypsies on the road!
2017 28' Twin Flying Cloud
2017 F250 King Ranch, 4X4, Blue-Ox WDH
Summer in Lincoln, MT- Winter in Austin, TX
gypsydad is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2016 Volvo XC90 specs released Tomzstream Tow Vehicles 9 08-31-2014 12:19 AM
Volvo XC90 PharmGeek Towing, Tow Vehicles & Hitches 43 05-12-2014 06:11 PM
Can a Volvo XC90 tow a Bambi CCD? Thehman 1997 - 2004 Bambi 8 08-15-2004 08:04 PM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.